User talk:Erikdr

Hello, Erikdr, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place " " on this page and someone will drop by to help. You can also contact me if you wish by clicking "talk" to the right of my name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

Okay copied from the Dalit Buddhism page where I was working on: " If someone above my (relatively rookie) Wiki skills would be so kind to start with, or help in, making headwords for the at least three 'Karuna Trusts'I found (one in UK linked with TBMSG, one in Kerala doing local medical work and the third in Sri Lanka) and then a disambiguation page on top of it? Headwords/topics themselves would remain quite basic, but it would help Wikipedia to show the audience at least that there is confusion possible..."

Tnx,

Erikdr (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

PS I'm out on holiday for a week starting tomorrow so might not be very quick in following-up


 * Mmmh, what's your question?
 * Oh and it is normally prohibited to copy 'n paste materials from other sites by law (licenses problem). mabdul 16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The question is, to rephrase, how to make a disambiguation page and then three new headword pages also. The headword pages all would have the phase 'Karuna Trust' in it but then e.g. 'Karuna Trust (UK based charity)', 'Karuna Trust (India based charity)', and 'Karuna Trust (Srilankan volunteer movement)'. Leave it to me to fill the sub pages themselves, but the model with creating new topics and then a 4th disambiguation topic which is the first to pop up when someone searches for 'Karuna Trust' is a bridge too far for doing it myself without creating too much technical harm. BTW, I copypasted from the discussion page for another Wikipedia headword where this issue remained unanswered already for a few days...

Tnx,

Erikdr (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If none of the pages would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then the DAB page will be called Karuna Trust and would be like...


 * Karuna Trust (UK based charity) -
 * Karuna Trust (India based charity) -
 * Karuna Trust (Srilankan volunteer movement) -
 * Following the "-" you do a very brief explanation - see WP:DAB.
 * If one of the pages was vastly more important then that would take the title Karuna Trust, and the DAB page would be at Karuna Trust (disambiguation), and you add a 'hatnote' to the very top of that main page thus


 * at the top of the article - to show a DAB page for other articles - see Template:About. DAB pages should have one blue link per line, so make the articles first.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great, hope it suffices and otherwise now probably I'll understand the help texts a lot more. Will try after h'day!

Erikdr (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Karuna Trust, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Sir Armbrust Talk to me  Contribs  08:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
 * Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Disambiguation link notification for May 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Upekkha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indifference. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Transportation in Calgary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banff ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Transportation_in_Calgary check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Transportation_in_Calgary?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Renaming talk pages
For future reference in case you do similar renamings, when you moved School of Economic Science to School of Philosophy and Economic Science and moved its talk page too, the talk page archives stayed at their old names such as Talk:School of Economic Science/Archive 1. This meant there weren't any links to the archives on the current talk page or any other clues they existed. I've now moved the three archives to Talk:School of Philosophy and Economic Science/Archive 1 etc and by wikimagic, the links on the talk page are back. NebY (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Hello, I'm Kingsif. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. I know very well you refuse to believe your editing is disruptive, but trust me, it is. Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry my trust for your understanding the Wiki techniques is probably decent. My trust in your understanding what is neutrality and what is the proper information representation of a case like this is zero. What I am doing is constructive and what you are doing is the opposite. Will soon have to make time for a DRN procedure, sorry. Erikdr (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings, you may be blocked from editing. If you cannot understand why such edits are wrong, you should probably not be making any edits at all. There is no discussion to be had, no compromise to reach on bad edits. I tried to explain, then you began harassing me. Stop it all, now. Kingsif (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, finally a response! It's a bit shocking how much you seem to be out of touch with reality and wikipedia rules. E.g. referring to disruptive editing. According to the Wiki definition something which "disrupts progress toward improving an article". My edits are the opposite, as they correct serious mistakes/bias in the article. Similarly, it's not vandalising: by adding these extra references it helps "presenting the sum of all human knowledge". And that is not what the current article does, as it solely mentions one of the two reasons for the radicalisation. (The other one that I add is backed by parties no less than UN and a goverment committee.)

Also "If you cannot understand why such edits are wrong, you should probably not be making any edits at all." sounds, well, like putting some editors above others and not allowed to be challenged. Quite a shame for yourself, isn't it?

So again: if you would read the DRN, instead of just calling asking for your contribution to this DRN 'spamming', you would see that it's not me breaking ANY Wikipedia policy. But you, by avoiding any dialogue; breaking netiquette, rolling back well-intended and IMHO definitely improving changes without being open for a dialogue, and whatever. In other words, disruptive editing. My edits are not wrong but correcting the current text breaking the Neutral Policy rule; hence they are neither breaking the OR nor NPV guidelines.

So let's see how the escalation continues, maybe a serious Wikipedia editor can convince me of stopping with this but you, totally out of touch with the meaning of the wikipedia rules, sadly cannot. Erikdr (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

April discussion continued
Further Introduction

Okay, poor Ed EdJohnston and the other administrators. Spending time on edit wars is far less rewarding than time on improving Wikipedia, but then in the end this work also is about improving Wikipedia content. Sorry I could not wait until Ed contacted me, if needed, to read my version of the events insofar they were not already on all parts of wiki. Text below is just a deeper and more detailed version…

And a disclaimer: though now working as one of the many editors for 11 years (and probably half of it in the Dutch version and other half the English), I don’t consider myself a Wiki expert. It’s the sole complete encyclopedia on the WWW, but in terms of the editing a social medium and as such one of the about 15 social media sites I frequently participate in. With each their different technology and rules, different roles (I’m ‘moderator’ in 4-5 of them); so forgive me if by adding to my own talk page here I follow a suboptimal flow. A case like this is spread over at least 5 pages: the two editor’s talk pages, the article talk page, the Administrator’s Noticeboard page and the DRN page itself plus DRN (process) talk page.

My wiki track record (at least the English half) is visible for all. Lots of minor changes/contributions, two article renames of which one major (sorry for the bug in the wizard that it can’t handle archived talk pages, now hopefully all know), and no edit wars to speak of. Hence this one comes quite unexpected to me. Of course, not being a native speaker, my quality of English sometimes is lower than a native speaker can accomplish; but as the 11 years show it should definitely be sufficient for wiki standards, and then a spelling/grammar error sounds to me something that the other editor can fix themselves or discuss in the talk page; no reason for a lock-stock-and-barrel revert.

Defense against the accusations

In the list of comments that I (after lots of inquiring) got from Kingsif Kingsif, and where (s)he never responded if I mentioned that I disagreed with them, a few main points appear. Hence with some more detail than in the Article talk page my response.

But first the initial trigger: a discussion on Sri Lanka on Quora. Itself a site with its purposes, strengths and weaknesses (just like Wikipedia). But with as specific ‘strength’ that I, and many other Quorans, regularly refer to Wikipedia as part of answering a question. And in this specific sad case, the Easter bombings, for the first time in my Quora career the Wikipedia article was plain biased and hence IMHO ‘wrong’. That conclusion I would have made no matter due to which trigger I would have read the article, and generally would have triggered me to edit Wikipedia. So the “because someone mentioned it on Quora” is a wrong accusation.

As we’ll see under next section, NPOV, it’s not singularly my own opinion that the current text is biased. Sources like New York Times, Westpoint Military Academy, Office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and two other newspapers definitely qualify as reliable under the No-Original-Research policy; so what my change does is exactly what the NPOV policy says, “Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective”. And interestingly enough one of those sources (UN) is from 2014, and reflects that the 2014 anti-muslim riots were a sign on the wall leading to further radicalisation; which sadly came true Easter 2019. To the surprise of me and quite a few others not directly against the Buddhist Sinhalese extremists but against the Lankan Christians, who were hardly involved in the anti-Muslim riots (but themselves also victim of Buddhist Sinhalese extremists); it shows how complex the situation, and the radicalisation, is.

(Personal sidenote: Sri Lanka is simply one of my ‘interests’ but I don’t identify with any of the groups there. In 2014 shortly after the riots a Wahabist Muslim work colleague of mine, actually a very peaceful and friendly man, told me ‘Erik look out with your Sri Lankan connections. In the international Wahabist noticeboards that I participate in, in the same groups where worldwide Muslims are asked and inspired to help in a ‘defensive jihad’ in a.o. Yemen, Myanmar and Syria, now for the first time some Sri Lankan Muslims, whose families got lots of damage and deaths in these 2014 riots, asked for worldwide Muslims to help them defending against Sinhalese extremists acting with impunity and backed by parts of the authorities’..)

--> NPOV <--

(See article talk page: it’s amongst the original accusations of Kingsif, but strangely enough not repeated in his response to Ed on his own talk page.)

See the Wiki description of the policy. Why the current text is not neutral I explained above. My almost sole extra sentence to the article, “Independent sources(…) give strong indications that next to this foreign influence the radicalisation of a section of Sri Lankan Muslims was also fueled by local interracial tensions”, does exactly what the policy suggests: “As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible.”

So what Kingsif writes, “only covering the facts of the event and not opinions on the background”, is not true. The current text definitely says “The Sri Lankan government was aware of some foreigners arriving in Sri Lanka to spread (…) Islamic extremism”. That is not a fact on the event, that is an opinion on the background. And a true one, but rather incomplete to attribute the radicalisation solely to this!

Then another original, and not repeated, accusation of Kingsif: me breaking the

--> no-OR policy <--

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources

Again no evidence behind the accusation at all, just empty (harsh) words. My five extra sources are “respected newspapers and international organisations” as OR mentions it, hence a mix of primary and secondary sources. But do note that the current article almost fully uses similar sources. But of course I am very open to removing or replacing a few of these sources if they fail to meet the requirements; it would probably be not hard to find alternative ones, the current (biased) representation of facts in the article is only found in pro-authorities propaganda including some local newspapers but not in any respected foreign newspaper.

--> Quality of English <--

Admitted: maybe the very first of my 3 attempts to change was quick-and-dirty, but again that would be reason for something in the talk page and not a point blank commentless revert. On the third version, which is still visible on my personal sandbox page, I ran both a spell check and a grammar check (with UK English settings). Result of the spell check: two sources give in the proposed new text 4 errors, of which half are already in the old text. Result of the grammar check: on three sites I got a total of 3 errors, of which two are already in the old text. Hopefully enough counter-proof of the accusation?

-->	Process <--

“I tried to explain why his edits are bad and he started harassing me.” --> Well interesting to read what according to Kingsif consists harrassing. The accusations of breaking OR and NPOV rules were and are not substantialised and empty, (s)he refuses to listen to my explanations of that, hence escalation is the sole way out. Calling escalation “harrassing” says a lot about Kingsif but not about the true situation…

“anyone reasonable should revert unsourced opinion” --> quite flabbergasting to call sourced opinion of five different respected and reliable sites “unsourced”…

What next?

Well that is basically up to Ed and the admin board. If my two-phase escalation fails the current text stays, which according to me and a lot of other readers is a small shame on Wikipedia’s quality. Again sorry that the first phase, DRN, failed but when I started it and put a message on Kingsifs talk page that got reverted with ‘please stop spamming me’ hence I can’t do much about it. If I have some success, or Kingsif himself/herself quickly enough acknowledges the silliness and wrongness in both their accusations and their way of communicating them, then we simply have a better Wikipedia text with at least 1-2 respected sources for the “was also fueled by local interracial tensions” addition. As I wrote in the DRN start in as neutral language as possible: “As this is about multiple policies, simply have one or two fellow editors, hopefully with some knowledge of governmental issues as this is about those, form an opinion and add to the Talk page. Then let's see whether we can get a consensus on the needed text changes.”

Good luck all, Erikdr (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, a nasty situation. I only added the page because I wrote one for Karuna Trust (UK), and with googling got quite a few results for 2 other Karuna Trusts. So I decided to make a Wiki disambiguation page and, insofar posssible, wrote the two other pages too.
 * Sadly for Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka) I cannot find more sources than the one linked. So it seems to maybe better tombstone it fully and modify the disambiguation page to mention solely 2, not 3, Karuna Trusts? Thanks for the feedback! Erikdr (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka)
Hello Erikdr, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

GTrang (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)